Skip to main content
2:30 pm
had. my other question -- are the working with all the schools in the superintendent zone? is that what was meant by the community's schools approach? >> it was helpful in having their technical assistance as we engage the communities around the sig. new day off helps us think about the community's schools approach. we have continued to attend their functions and to get one on one support making sure we approach that. >> last night, we attended a meeting and committed to knocking on doors. we also committed to having epc come out to the bayview zone to help. a lot of the things you are saying we did not mention in
2:31 pm
detail. president kim: the board is just hungry for all this information. we want more and more. [applause] -- [laughter] i think that is it for now in terms of questions. thank you so much for the presentation. are there more questions and comments from staff? >> i just wanted to clarify -- are the superintendent zones schools mainly in mission and bayview, or does it struck out two different districts? >> they are mainly in the bayview and mission, but we have two schools that are not -- john muir and paul revere. commissioner yee: could i follow up on my question about the cross pollination? >> we absolutely decided to do
2:32 pm
that back in june. we have not started to do it yet. right now, we are using our tsas that our experts for doing professional development and not counting on teachers within the zone to do it. >> another important way we communicate our efforts across the district -- the deputy affords us opportunities to meet regularly with our colleagues assistant superintendents and teams so we can share practice there. president kim: just one more thing about student assignments. i suggested this earlier, but it would be great to have parent leaders. they understand each other's frustrations and can communicate with one another around the process. i think we really need to have
2:33 pm
zones dedicated to those families. i know that is additional work. i think our reach is so important. >> last night at the meeting, chablis was there. she and emily are going door to door along with someone from jump. president kim: seeing no more comments, thank you so much. moving on to item n, calendar resolutions. there are nine tonight. now item o, consent calendar. >> akin to the meeting late. -- i came to the meeting late. k-14?
2:34 pm
>> we would like to move for first reading to item 109-k14 and 109-14k16. those are on page 101 and 105. our assistance superintendent for special education is unfortunately out of town. we know there are questions and would like to be able to answer them. if we sever them for first reading, get your questions, get them answered, we will bring them back for action at the next meeting. >> those are the translation once. i also want to make sure she is aware of the feedback from the members of the public we got that is in or folders. president kim: there will be removed for first reading and will come back to us at the next board meeting. a vote on consent calendar item
2:35 pm
has already been moved and seconded. [roll call] ms> ms. mendoza left her vos in a written statement. she is voting aye on all except [list] commissioner norton: yes. commissioner wynns: yes. president kim: yes. what about commissioner fewer? president kim: item p.
2:36 pm
consent calendar resolution severed for speakers and immediate action. we will hear kate first. commissioner wynns: i severed this as an example. i have had this discussion with all the deputy superintendents. i do not have a problem with this contract. however, i think i made reference to it at an earlier meeting. i started the practice of reviewing before the meeting all the administratively approved resolutions. we had questions about how in my work. this is only one example. there are others where in this agenda there was a contract on the board agenda for items for us to vote on. all those items are on the
2:37 pm
administratively approved list. my concern is that what we have got are things on the same agenda which cumulatively go above the threshold. when we talked about there being a cumulative threshold that would bar administrative of provo, we presume, all of us -- would bar administrative approval, we assumed, all of us , that they would be removed in time. we do not have a mechanism for doing this. there are items on the administrative late approved list which are not on the same agenda, which in a previous meeting we approve large contract for contractors. now smaller contractors with that same contract appear on the administratively approved list. we do not even have a list on
2:38 pm
people's desks. some of them are kind of obvious. that is why in bringing that up. we need to develop such a mechanism. since my discussion yesterday, it occurred to me that i would like device. we might put it on the rules committee or the budget committee. we definitely need discussion for how to do this. what we anticipated is not working. now we have some examples. >> i would like to specifically request that the legal counsel provide us with draft language for the next meeting in october. i think we need to get on this. commissioner wynns: i am sure there does need to be some regulation, but the issue is for a technical one as far as i am concerned. that does not mean i do not want to regulation. but i am asking before we discuss this wherever we discuss it, somebody has to tell us how this could actually happen. we have made the presumption
2:39 pm
that they would happen in some way. we do not have a mechanism for this to work. this group of administratively approved contracts alone has revealed huge loopholes if they are on the same agenda and add up above the threshold. obviously one of the problems is the people who initiative contracts. if they came from the same person's desk the might be able to know that. but some school the months to hire this contractor and pay them $8,000 -- school who wants to hire this contractor and pay them $8,000, but they do not know where they are relative to the threshold.
2:40 pm
i hope there will be at that venue -- tell us where we are going to get some technical issue of how it is gone to work. president kim: i do not want another board meeting where we are asked to approve contracts that could in the same meeting go over the threshold. until there is a regulation in place of want to ask staff to monitor us and not administratively approve resolutions that could put it over the threshold. the board was very clear when we said we were raising the threshold. we wanted to watch and make sure there were not loopholes for this to be abused. this is a huge loophole. i am very concerned. commissioner fewer: the staff think they can grab something over the next few weeks? >> just to see if commissioner
2:41 pm
norton is in agreement, the policy is already written. but you are looking for is a computer mechanism that will flag the same -- what you are looking for is a computer mechanism that will flag the same vendor. commissioner wynns: there has to be regulatory language at the same time. there has to be something in the regulations. i do not think we need a new policy that says "here is the way." some departments somewhere along the line has to be identified in a regulatory way. it is not happening without that. >> we will do it in a two-step process. the finance to permit will come up with a policy and legal will draft the language -- the finance department will come up with a policy and legal will
2:42 pm
draft the language. commissioner norton: we have resolutions in process. i would like some backtrackicheg so we can make sure whatever is administratively approved before the next board meeting is not going to push us over. it is making sure we close this loophole, and to make sure until we get that language down that we are not approving more than the limit at a given point. i am not being very clear. >> we as staff are violating the policy the board approved if we are going aboave the
2:43 pm
threshold. you made that adopted. we just need to discuss with you the process that we will put in place so we can make sure that is not happening. >> there is one other thing related to this if i may. another part of this whole process that hasn't been -- that we haven't figured out the mechanics of yet is how to get the reports on what has been administratively approved by the board. frankly, to review them, i had to look at the orangals in the file, which i prefer not to do. i don't want to be responsible for messing up the order or whatever. that is the only way to have done it before this meeting. that is all there was, the originals. >> commissioner lee? >> thank you president kim and
2:44 pm
commissioners. i just wanted to do a couple of things. one is reinforce the council member's resolution. we might go so far as to say in the administrative regulation, but just to establish a mechanism that we've discussed to flag the issue -- or the pattern of a single contractor being engaged by two different school sides or departments independently without an intent to cirque extent the process. but as it so happens, different people see a need for the same provider in some cases without knowledge of the fact that another school or another department may be engaging with the same contract. i wanted to clarify, it is not
2:45 pm
an attempt to circumvent this threshold. it is an inadvertent loophole if the perspective is that every single vendor, the amount is $25,000 that the vendor engages with. we understand that is the perspective, and we will find the right way to address that. >> i just want to ask. we ask the question where should we discuss this. i just want to give the pin chronic that the rules committee is the appropriate place. this is a policy change that came through the rules committee. the implementation of that policy change is the appropriate discussion of that committee. i think that is the best place to do it. it don't think we should worry about what we have to do, but
2:46 pm
implementing the policy change. >> no other questions. role call, please? >> five ayes. >> there is a major professional development contract for the national urban alliance. i was not supportive of this contract, which was significantly bigger last year, and so i am not prepared to support this regardless of the fact that clearly by testimony and also what we know, there
2:47 pm
are schools like this -- schools that like this. the things that i have learned about this, and some that i knew last year before we began, last year we actually reduced the amount of this contract last year because we weren't able to recruit into the program for schools to participate the full complement of schools that we could accommodate with the amount of money in the original contract that we did. even though this was a professional -- ongoing professional development for these schools that are essentially free to the schools. this is centrally spent money. they don't have to spend their site funds on it. but also, when we were doing -- i understand that we are talking here about -- i take it back. i was going to say last year we talked about this mostly being federal professional development dollars.
2:48 pm
as i recall, this actually is tier three money that we are talking about today, now unrestricted money. when we were making those cuts, we did ask for a sort of plan for the major areas of expenditure in formerly restricted money that is now unrestricted. i think, as i recall, this is one of the main examples we used. not this contract, but would you give us a strategically based plan for professional development resources. what professional development resources do we have left? at least i believe that we have made major cuts in these areas, that we might have cut this very money, formerly restricted state funding that now we can spend it on whatever we want. overall that department was cut some 60% to 80%.
2:49 pm
what have we got left? how do we plan to deploy it? how is it in support of our academic goals? not having seen that -- and i want to make clear i am not asking for a complex plan that is going to take somebody weeks to develop. i just would like -- and i think we said that at the budget hearings, kind of a list of the professional development resources we have left. those that are restricted, mainly federal dollars and those that are not, and what areas do you want to target them at? convince me they are strategic to meet our goals. so not having seen any of that, i am not prepared to support this and am kind of disappointed that we are proposing to go forward. also, the part of that strategic thinking, i think i
2:50 pm
would like to have it explained to me what limited dollars are to be spent on limited schools? i have nothing against these schools. i am very supportive of them. but offense, would they be -- which they are obviously not, schools in the support zone? this group of schools as far as i know are mainly schools that were recruited last year to be in this program. some of them, the a.p.d. staff went out and said to them we want you to sign up for this rather than a school plan. >> i uns. commissioner wynns and i had conversation prior to this. i want to make sure. what you are asking, and i will take this to the academic professional development executive team. you are asking what funds do we have left for professional development, and how do we
2:51 pm
deploy those funds, and what will they be used for, and how does it address our district goals? i think what i hear you saying is that you would like something very simple that basically outlines those things in that way, and i believe that can be prepared, and i'm more than prepared to take that to the executive team and request that. >> support garcia? >> i do want you to know that this summer i attended one of the training sessions. all these schools mentioned here came up to me and basically begged us to do whatever we could to bring this back for their schools. this was a voluntary thing. they no longer had to keep up with it. they felt it has made such a huge impact. just about every single staff person was there. they made a commitment to come
2:52 pm
in not because they had to, but because it was something they really wanted to work on. they saw it as an essential part of the work they were doing on the school site. that is pretty much the reaction i had from all these scores. we were ready, as you mentioned , commissioner wynns, ready to pull the plug on it. it was a single larning expenditure. we cut it down as much as we could, and we have all summer received from all of these schools a willingness to say look, this is having an impact on our schools. we are really interested in developing some data on it. this year we want to spend the resource to create more of a trainer of trainers model. that is what they want to do. most of these people at these school sites, which incidentally are all really teachers, have said to us they would like to have additional trainer so they could go out in
2:53 pm
our distinct to be doing this type of work. it was really not talked down i can generally tell you, because i got mobbed on this thing, people coming to me saying what is it going to take? we need to have this in place. >> with all due respect, mr. superintendent, do you think they would have mobbed you to have it if they would have been expected to pay for it out of their site funds? tet great to have something gifted from the district, to have an extra development project they are not paying for. the schools on this list -- willie brown is the only one in the bayview and one we have committed to close. none of the other schools on this list are priority schools that we heard about in the superintendent's zone. i didn't support this the first time around, and i am not prepared to support it tonight.
2:54 pm
>> are there any other questions or comments from board members? role call? whereupon a role call vote was taken. >> it fails. >> did commissioner mendoza vote on this resolution? >> madam chair, would you mind if i confer with the particle amount aaron, what she is referring to when she said it is permissible to register your vote? i want to confirm there is a board rule or something that i am not aware of. >> item two is superintendent's
2:55 pm
proposals first reading, none tonight. >> the next is a board members proposal, none tonight. we are moving on. item s, board members reports. the first is our report from the augmented building ground and services committee. this is chaired by commissioner mendoza, who had to leave tonight. i will do a quick update. the facilities record on the opening of school, everything happened very smoothly with the exception of the preschool at montessori, which i hear now will be reopening. but all other construction actually happened on schedule. where there were some concerns, letters were sent out to parents, and i believe that was at i.s.a., international academy. and in terms of educator housing, which was brought up earlier, we will be getting the same exact prosecutes takes at
2:56 pm
the committee on the agenda item. next is a report from the augmented curriculum and program committee from september 7th. commissioner fewer? >> we had a very short meeting, thank goodness. the committee recommended -- i mean the committee adopted the recommendation from staff, which was to bring this back to the next crick larry meeting so we could answer questions -- curriculum questions so we could answer questions brought by staff. >> our next report is the augmented ad hoc committee on student assignment, which i heard was a nice and lengthy meeting from yesterday. commissioner wynns? >> thank you. yes, we had a lot of people here. that was really good, i think. we had a lot of testimony. we had three items. this is how we organized our
2:57 pm
agenda. at the actually had two resolutions pending before the board now. one is 24 s.p. 2 which is the adoption of new ten ands areas for elementary schools and the proposed middle school feeder pattern. the third item was a separate resslates to a general education transportation policy. those were action items. we divided the meeting into three component, one on the elementary school feedered pad -- one on elementary school ten ands areas, one on middle school feeder patterns and transition. woe took testimony on each. >> wow. >> this is what the economy do. the committee recommended that the board adopt the proposed elementary school feeder patterns. there are a few changes
2:58 pm
recommended by staff. they are actually small changes that address the issues -- that came up in the community meetings and input, which is really great, things that staff may not have been able to take into consideration related to certain transportation routes, related to some actual geologyal things where a hill isolated one part of a neighborhood. there were other adjustments, the placing of certain -- evening out attendance areas in certain neighborhoods, which avoided the concentration of several housing prockets in one elementary school attendance area. and generally speaking, with a few exceptions that were brought up last night -- there may be a few very small further adjustments based on testimony yesterday, the committee is
2:59 pm
recommending that the board adopt those elementary school feeder patterns when it comes up for regular action before the regular board. the second part of that resolution, the proposed draft middle school feeder pat erps, the committee considered the staff recommendation that that the middle school feeder pattern be fazed in. that means they won't be used next year. the draft will go away as we have said in all the testimony. i have to report that most of the testimony yesterday was on the middle school feeder patterns. there were people from certain schools that were urging us to adopt them as they were proposed in the draft because they like them. but generally speaking, there was more concern about it and support for the idea of this fazed-in adoption, which is also what has been heard in the

September 24, 2010 1:30pm-2:00pm PST

TOPIC FREQUENCY Us 11, Wynns 7, Norton 3, Mendoza 2, Ms. Mendoza 1, Emily 1, Uns 1, Lee 1, John Muir 1, S.p. 1, Erps 1, Aaron 1, Provo 1, Montessori 1, Bayview 1, Willie Brown 1, Garcia 1, Paul Revere 1
Network SFGTV
Duration 00:30:00
Scanned in San Francisco, CA, USA
Source Comcast Cable
Tuner Channel 89 (615 MHz)
Video Codec mpeg2video
Audio Cocec ac3
Pixel width 528
Pixel height 480
Sponsor Internet Archive
Audio/Visual sound, color